|
Any pursuit of understanding and meaning requires faith, the acceptance of certain
underlying assumptions that are necessary if one is to use a given mode
of inquiry. ...proponents of religion emphasize the crucial role of
faith, though it is unfortunately often presented in the form of
uncritical belief. ...faith is also a prerequisite for philosophical
inquiry; the philosopher needs the confidence that such inquiry actually
pertains to truth, that reality can be thought about. In addition to
faith, philosophizing also requires reason. If a theory is internally
inconsistent, illogical, or inconsistent with experience, it is unlikely
to be accepted as sound philosophy.
Science also requires a type of faith, although it rarely goes under that label.
Whereas religions normally make a clear statement of their articles of
faith, science introduces its assumptions more surreptitiously. B. Alan Wallace,
Choosing Reality, p. 3
A Dozen Science Myths
Updated:
02/14/2020
The following science myths have significantly and
effectively been disconfirmed, yet are still considered dogma in the
halls of academia.
1. Relativity:
2. Constant speed of light: over the last 200
years, more than a dozen different observers and experimenters have
measured the speed of light using at least 16 different methods. Some of
these scientists have taken measurements over their lifetimes, using the
same equipment and protocols, so that changes in these factors would not
induce a corresponding change in the value obtained. All of the results
show a constant decline in the velocity of light that amounts to 0.5
percent over that time period.
See:
http://www.setterfield.org/cx1.html
For a so-called universal constant, this
is a monstrous change, and one that shouldn't be swept under the rug.
Prior to the advent of relativity and up to about 1940, articles about
these results were published in the physics journals and the changes in
the experimental or observed results were openly discussed. Since that
date and the mainstream acceptance of relativity, the stream of articles
and discussion has dried up. This one phenomenon of a decrease in the
speed of light by itself completely undermines and disconfirms
relativity.
It was the irresponsible American press that created and
fostered the myth of Einstein's genius. See:
The Establishment Myth of Albert Einsteins's Genius
Now we come to the year 2015, when scientists are
showing that structured light travels slower than non-structured light.
3. Absence of an aether:
http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/History/forgotten.htm
Did the Michelson-Morley experiments
prove there was no "aether wind"?
Probably not! They have been accepted by almost everyone
as giving a "null" result, but in point of fact they showed a very
interesting periodic variation indicating something. If it was
the presence of an aether wind, then it was not behaving in the way they
expected, but it was definitely something that needed further
investigation, and Dayton Miller, working at first with Morley,
undertook the task. The variations proved to be reproducible and to show
systematic changes with time of year and some other factors. He also
showed, incidentally, that the effect disappeared if you put the
apparatus in a thick-walled enclosure, which nullifies several of the
more recent tests. He summarised his work in great detail in a review
paper in 1933 (Miller, Dayton C, “The Ether-Drift Experiments and the Determination of the
Absolute Motion of the Earth”, Reviews of Modern Physics 5, 203-242
(1933)). For a much shorter version written in 1940 (the year before he
died) see his
article for the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
He interpreted his results as showing relative motion of the aether. It
could either be that the solar system was moving pretty fast (about 200
km/sec, faster than the earth moves around the sun) in a direction
roughly perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic, or the aether was
moving in the opposite direction at that speed. The aether seemed to be
moving like a fluid, going with much slower relative velocity near solid
bodies, thus accounting for the apparently modest speed (about 10
km/sec) indicated by Miller's experiments.
These facts about Miller were drawn to my attention by James DeMeo, who
continues to research the subject. It appears that there was a major
difference of opinion between Miller and Einstein. Einstein's Special
Relativity theory demanded that the Michelson-Morley experiments must
have been null! The aether was not acceptable.
DeMeo reports (January
2001) that he has now found evidence that Einstein was more directly
involved than he had thought. Much new material has been added to his
original paper, which concentrated on Shankland's 1955 report, written
in consultation with Einstein. (Shankland had been an assistant to
Miller in 1932-3.)
As Miller said, in an article in a local paper:
The trouble with Professor Einstein is that he knows nothing
about my results. ... He ought to give me credit for knowing that
temperature differences would affect the results. He wrote to me in
November suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no allowance
for temperature. (Cleveland Plain Dealer January 27, 1926.)
It was evidently a power struggle between the two, the odds tipped in
favour of Einstein by the media-enhanced "victory" of his General
Relativity theory after the 1919 eclipse. By 1955 the aether had become
a dirty word. Even in 1940 or so, I can find no reference to Miller's
existence in Herbert Ives' papers (see The Einstein Myth in my
book list).
The 1979 Brillet and Hall experiment*, currently accepted as
an accurate confirmation of Michelson and Morley's "null" result,
appears to have been conducted in ignorance of Miller's work. They seem
to have been unaware of Miller's conclusion that the aether wind can
only be detected in the open. Their temperature-controlled Fabry-Perot
interferometer would have had little chance!
DeMeo is not the only person to have spotted Shankland and Einstein's
error! See notes by Prof Allais to the French Academy of Sciences, 1997,
1999 and 2000 at
http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/Science.htm .
However, let us not jump to conclusions! Could Miller in fact have
been seeing the same thing as Gershteyn et al., who reported in February
2002** that there was an apparent periodic variation in the value of G?
The data was not quite conclusive but appeared to show that its main
variations followed a sidereal cycle, not a solar one. Could it be that
a gravitational effect caused the arms of Miller's apparatus to bend and
vary slightly in effective length? Or could it be that what he saw was
merely an ordinary wind effect? Whatever it was, it should not have been
ignored. Even if there was no sign of drift, this should not have been
used to dismiss the idea of an aether, since all it means is that some
wrong assumptions have been made about its properties.
*A. Brillet and J. L. Hall, Physical Review Letters 42, 549 (1979)
**Mikhail Gershteyn et al, “Experimental Evidence
That the Gravitational Constant Varies with Orientation”,
www.arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0202058
For a fundamental and fatal challenge to Relativity theory see:
Relativity Theory
4. Invariance of the
random radioactive decay
rate: In our experience, there are two factors that create, effect
or determine the future 1) Cause, and 2) Purpose. Number one, cause, is
relatively easy to see or understand. In scientific thinking, every
event or development has a cause or combination of causes, so that the
future is a fabric of causes. However, because human beings have a
purposive affect on the future, purpose is also a creative agent for the
future. Change your purpose and you will thereby change your future.
Science generally eschews dealing with purpose and
therefore deals exclusively with cause and effect in the "hard"
sciences. When it comes to radioactive decay, science is being
hypocritical when it claims that atomic decay is random. Randomness is
not a cause. Not only is science hypocritical in this regard, but it is
blind when it claims the decay rate is constant. Certainly the decay
rate can be changed by bombardment with neutrons–that is how an atomic
chain reaction is set off–but the decay rate can also be affected by
electric field strength, and the decay rate shows a pattern that is in
sync with the sidereal day.
"Radioactive isotope decay rate or half-life can
be increased or decreased as needed to
deactivate radioactivity or to increase shelf
life of radioactive isotopes. Currently many
investigators/experimenters have reported
half-life anomalies and have demonstrated
repeatability of the various processes. The
deactivation/neutralization of radioactivity in
isotopes by the several demonstrated processes
clearly suggest the possibility of full scale
processing of radioactive nuclear materials to
deactivate radioactive nuclear materials. "
"In 1964 we thought and believed that
radioactivity in nuclear waste would soon be
history on planet earth. As history has proven
us wrong, we now know and understand that there
is a fortune, billions yearly, to be made by
saving every scrap of radioactive nuclear waste
and trying to bury it in Yucca Mountain and in
cleaning up spills, leaks, and escaping
radioactive particles from decaying containment
schemes. We were just looking at the wrong goal
post. No one receiving the funds has any
interest in eliminating radioactivity in nuclear
waste. Nuclear Half-Life Modification Technology
could reduce the cost to a fraction of the cost
that is experienced today." ("Radioactivity
Deactivation at High Temperature in an Applied
DC Voltage Field Demonstrated in 1964". Larry
Geer & Cecil Baumgartner,
www.gdr.org/nuclear_half.htm )
“The ‘Reifenschweiler effect’ is the observation
that the beta-decay of tritium half-life 12.5
years is delayed reversibly by about 25-30% when
the isotope is absorbed in 15 nm
titanium-clusters in a temperature window in
between 160-275 C. Remarkably at 360 C the
original radioactivity reappears. The effect is
absent in bulk metal. Discovered around
1960/1962 at Philips Research Eindhoven, The
Netherlands Reifenschweiler extensively
discussed his observation with o.a Casimir (the
director of research at the time), Kistemaker
(ultracentrifuge expert), and although no
satisfactory explanation was found, R. was
allowed to publish it. At the time a unique
example as to how an electronic environment
might affect nuclear phenomena.”
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/311alberts.html
"Thirty years ago, Otto Reifenschweiler was
searching for a compound which could protect
Geiger-Mueller tubes from damage when they are
first ionised. He found the compound, which
became a money-spinner for Philips, in a mixture
of titanium and radioactive tritium. He also
discovered that as the mixture was heated, its
radioactivity declined sharply. No process known
to physics could account for such a baffling
phenomenon: radioactivity should be unaffected
by heat. Nevertheless, as the temperature
increased from 115°C to 160°C, the emission of
beta particles fell by 28%." High temperature
supresses radioactive decay", Science Frontiers,
Mar-Apr- 1994 http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf092/sf092c14.htm
Physics Letters A (“Reduced radioactivity of
tritium in small titanium particles,” Vol. 184, pp. 149-153).
"It became clear that radioactive decay rates
could be affected by ordinary electrolysis. This
led some scientists to propose that a process be
developed for disposal of radioactive waste. Dr.
G.H. Miley, for example, wrote U.S. Department
of Energy Nuclear Energy Research Initiative
(1999), Proposal No. 99-0222, "Scientific
Feasibility Study of Low-Energy Nuclear
Reactions (LENRS) for Nuclear Waste
Amelioration".( http://papers.sae.org/1999-01-2725/
) The proposal was actually accepted, but some
of those "institutionalized, atherosclerotic
precision mound builders" that I talk about,
later killed the project." ("Adventures in
Energy Destruction",
http://scripturalphysics.org/qm/adven.html )
"In Issue No. 26 of Infinite Energy, we reported
that Prof. George Miley's Low- Energy Nuclear
Reactions (LENR) Group at the University of
Illinois had been awarded a peer-reviewed U.S.
Department of Energy contract–for an
experimental study to verify previously tested
electrolytic techniques to remediate radioactive
nuclides. In Issue No. 27, we reported that
Miley's grant was in danger of being eliminated
by a chorus of cold fusion critics who protested
to DOE officials about the award. The critics
have now succeeded in getting the Miley grant killed.
Miley's funding of approximately $100,000 has
been eliminated by DOE before one penny of it
was transferred to the University of Illinois. A
secret "review" of the science behind the award
by an unnamed panel of six individuals
(increased for some unknown reason from the
original three panelists) did the killing. Other
universities winning these NERI–Nuclear Energy
Research Initiative–awards have received their
funding already."
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue28/criticskill.html
http://web.pdx.edu/~pdx00210/News/CFRLEngNews/CFRLEN05.htm
http://papers.sae.org/1999-01-2725/
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue28/criticskill.html
And here is one from Transactions of the American Nuclear Society:
"Previously, it has been reported that nuclear
transmutation reactions are accelerated when
radioactive elements are subjected to low-level
electric fields during electrolysis of aqueous
electrolytes. . . . Our research investigated
the co-deposition of U3O8 and H on Ni cathodes,
using an acidic electrolyte and a Pt anode.
Then, the radiation emitted by the electroplated
U3O8 was compared with radiation emitted by
un-electrolyzed U3O8 from the same batch. . . .
The electroplated U3O8 initially produced ~2900
counts in 3 min (April 17, 2000). This rose
sporadically in steps to 3700 counts in 3 min on
May 11, 2000, and it remained relatively
constant at this level until the . . .
measurements ended on June 8, 2000. The
unelectrolyzed U3O8 from the same batch emitted
radiation at a much lower rate, ~1250 counts in
3 min, and this remained almost constant over
the entire period of measurement." (G. Goddard,
J. Dash and S. Frantz, "Characterization of
Uranium Co-deposited with Hydrogen on Nickel
Cathodes", Transactions of the American Nuclear
Society, 83, 376-378 (2000) ).
I have actually done experiments with
radioactive materials that show dramatic changes
in decay rates. The experiments are inexpensive,
easy to do, and very repeatable. You can read
about my experiences at:
"Adventures in Energy Destruction",
http://scripturalphysics.org/qm/adven.html
5. Validity of radiometric dating:
Translated from the Italian...
“...Since there are now numerous experimental
tests that contradict the hypothesis that
radioisotopes can yield accurate prehistoric
dates, there can be no doubt that this method of
dating has proved to be nothing more than a nice
hope, a dream , but it will never be accepted as
a scientific theory. Or to say the same thing in
a slightly more philosophical way , following
Popper , we could say that the theory in
question has been falsified. The fact that
currently most of the scientific community
accepts it as a fact is a bad sign, and sound
scientific evidence that all too often they use
all their energy in defending shared prejudices
rather than being open to new discoveries, who
prefer protecting lies rather than admitting
their mistakes...(see the analysis of the
theoretical physicist Thomas Kuhn in his book
"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions").
In 1986, lava came out of Mt. St. Helens
volcano. In 1997, five samples of the lava
flow were analyzed and dated by the method of
radioisotope (potassium - argon method to be
exact) : the result was not only that
contemporary events were dated differently, but
that the actual date (just 11 years) yielded
dates ranging from less than half a million
years to almost 3 million years . The maximum
percentage error committed in this "measurement"
is about to 2,000,000,000% , two billion
percent! Try not laugh at the thought that
ancient fossils are dated using this "advanced
scientific technique."
Now I cite two examples of unreliable dating,
but which have been reworked to try and bring
the results to the expectations of the researchers:
The first is the dating of fossils of
Australopithecus ramidus (scientific reference: WoldeGabriel , G. et al, Ecological and
temporal placement of early Pliocene hominids at
Aramis , Ethiopia , Nature 371 : 330-333 ,
1994). In order to perform a first dating is
that skeleton, they tried to evaluate the
samples of basalt closest to the layer from
which they had extracted fossils : the majority
of these samples , analyzed by the argon – argon
method, led to an estimated age of about 23
million years. As such dating contradicted the
thesis that hominids have been officially
accepted only up to 6 or 7 million years, the
authors of this research decided to discard
these datings as too old. So they examined
samples of basalt farther away from fossil fuels
and chose 17 of 26 examples to get the much more
acceptable age of 4.4 Ma. The nine samples
provided much older ages, but the authors
decided they were contaminated , and therefore
discarded them . That's how radiometric dating
works. It is guided by prejudice and the
constant manipulation of data to explain
everything in the light of obsolete and
misleading theories. A more philosophical and
sociological T. Kuhn might say that scientists ,
rather than " explain" , try to " bend " the
existing data, trying to bring results closer to
the theories in vogue, trying to get the data to
fit within the experimental prepackaged boxes of orthodox theories....”
6. Universal constant of Gravity: The
gravitational constant is drifting right here on earth and yet this
canard, like many others, has a life of its own. We can have no
confidence that the "gravitational constant" is the same in other
galaxies. There are more than one model that replace the "geometrical
description" that we use but that is not really an explanation.
7. Galactic components revolve around the galactic center of mass:
Stars and star structures like globular clusters are Galactic components. They don't
revolve this way; instead, they revolve around the galactic axis as part of
a semi-rigid structure that turns like a wheel around an axis. Also,
globular cluster structure is not sustained by rotation, but by electrical
forces.
8. Sun Powered by Internal nuclear fusion:
This one should have been buried long ago and now top solar scientists
admit it has been disconfirmed. The evidence that the sun is powered
externally by electrical plasma Birkeland currents continues to pile up.
9. Redshift Equals Distance in Cosmology: Eminent
astronomer Halton Arp and colleagues have put the lie to this
fundamental building block of modern cosmology, and Arp's two books,
Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies and Seeing Red have much
more than enough observations and information to satisfy the open-minded
critical thinker.
10. Circular craters are caused by meteoric impact:
Craters generally have a circular shape, and this is thought to be the
result of a high speed impact. Overwhelmingly the craters on earth,
other planets, and moons are not caused by impact from incoming solid
objects like meteors, but are the result of one polarity of electrical
discharge machining. Only a small percentage of circular craters are
caused by impact and these generally differ significantly from those
caused by electrical discharge.
11. Canyons, rilles, river beds are caused by water
erosion: These are almost universally caused by previous
interplanetary electrical discharge scarring (EDM) machining.
12. Anthropologically caused global warming and climate
change: One comprehensive article that gives a foundational view is: See
The
Settled Science
A summary of the situation is that these thousands of
climate “scientists” and researchers are almost to a
man completely ignorant of the major factors–recent
planetary catastrophes, new solar system environment
for our planet, and the actual electric driving forces that affect
our climate and its change. Deplorable. And what is equally inexcusable, is that
the climate change defenders mostly still believe
that CO2 is the enemy. Completely absurd in the face
of the evidence. They also seem to have a penchant for
buying into the “doom and gloom” guilt syndrome.
Also, they all seem to be compartmentalized in terms
of a limited domain of concern–conservation,
pollution, global warming, etc.–without looking for
the balanced big picture. And they are all anxious
to be heard, and to WIN for their petty, limited agenda.
What is also dismaying, is that some of them seem to
have significant integrity while being positioned
with a false paradigm. That’s just great! A potent
mix of foolishness with great integrity. It doesn’t
get any better than that? Is it more important to
have great integrity while being wrong, or to have
less integrity while being right?
|